Python still lacks many of Matlab's features, its only advantage is being Free Software.
Python has plenty of advantages over Matlab, and plenty of libraries that Matlab doesn't have. I stopped using Matlab not because it cost money, but because it was a PITA and didn't get the job done.
Ask any numerical analyst to know why it is a terrible idea to solve a linear system with inv(A)*b. But make sure you have at least half an hour free.
Like many specialists, numerical analysts are often too close to the problem. inv(A)*b is fine if it gets the job done.
Unfortunately GNU Fortran doesn't support this yet (unless it has been enabled lately).
GNU Fortran supports OpenMP, MPI, and PVM; those are the current de-facto standards.
G95 implements the new parallel Fortran primitives, but hardly anybody uses them yet, and they are still rather unproven.
Way too many bugs have been created through history that are related to operations that aren't type-safe. Ada is one language that is really strict. Java is acceptable. C# is not acceptable since it has some unsafe parts when it comes to data typing.
C# is, in fact, an excellent language to teach about type safety because it has an explicit "unsafe" construct. Ada has similar back-doors, but actually a lot less error checking; Ada is cumbersome, not safe or well-designed. Java is a toy language.
The idea of programming as a semiskilled task, practiced by people with a few months' training, is dangerous.
Even more dangerous is the idea of programming language design as a semiskilled task, which is, unfortunately, what has happened with C++.
but let's not let most people loose on the infrastructure of our technical civilization or force the professionals to use only tools designed for amateurs.
Professionals don't use C++; professionals use tools that are productive and don't get in the way. Aging grad students who love complexity for complexity's sake use C++.
I wouldn't consider C++ "going beyond" Python; C++ is a bloody mess.
Python is an excellent preparation for most languages other than C/C++, and the fact that people may have a hard time switching to C/C++ is not a strike against Python but a strike against C/C++.
The data loss and corruption that the parent is talking about is the fault of crap hardware. In almost every case, USB is involved, or more rarely the lack of ECC ram. It is true that ZFS is less tolerant of bad hardware.
What good is a fault tolerant file system if it isn't tolerant of faults?
With such hardware, it is impossible for any filesystem to function reliably.
Quite incorrect.
USB and Firewire bridges are notorious for this. If you care about your data, you should run the other way if you happen upon one.
Well, golly, those only happen to be the way 99.999% of Apple's customers attach exernal drives, not to mention 99.9% of all of the rest of the world.
Which is a shame, since if it did, ZFS would be last file system mankind would have ever needed.
Well, there is always software that promises a lot and crumbles under its own weight, and then there is software that promises little and delivers a bit more. Windows and Solaris fall into the first category, UNIX and Linux into the second. Worse really is better.
My personal favorite is: "Our planet is decaying in its own filth, and is best avoided by all aliens"
Other choices are: "We are a benign species, opposed to interplanetary conflict, and believe in equal opportunity for all beings, regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation or planet of origin", "Congratulations on your birthday", and "We look forward to sharing the many benefits of our combined knowledge".
AT&T runs a standard GSM/3G network and allows unlocked phones. There are plenty of phones that support tethering, including all Symbian phones. If you buy an iPhone with restrictions, that's really your problem.
The mandate is that the software is provided free with the system, not that users actually use it. It doesn't even have to be pre-installed, it's OK to have it provided on a CD.
The US isn't trying to protect Germany at all, it's trying to protect itself: its markets, its access to resources, and its citizens. Democracy in Europe is, and has ever been, only a means to that end.
Iraq is a prime example of the States invading a country just to get at its natural resources.
And if so, so what? Iraq was a corrupt, murderous, and genocidal dictatorship. What is wrong with attempting to democratize it and install a free market economy that is actually willing to trade with the US and Europe? Everybody wins that way. Hey, the US did the same thing in Germany and it worked out well for Germans, didn't it? The other victors would have been happy to dismantle Germany completely or treat it like the Soviets did with East Germany.
Besides, the US isn't just getting natural resources for itself, it's also getting them for Europe. What do you think European economy and politics would look like if the US didn't do these things? Europe can't even ensure a reliable flow of heating gas from Russia.
China? In fifteen years the Chinese will simply buy their way past anything the States do.
I don't want to live in a world dominated by China, Russia, and Islamic nations. I suspect neither do you. Maybe we can't do anything about it in the long term, but I'm glad at least someone is trying in the short term.
I do expect us to do warfare on them - economic warfare.
The US and European economies are too tightly linked; you'd just end up destroying both. That is why European and American politicians keep talking.
Right now the USA are an aging superpower on its way out, desperately trying to somehow keep themselves relevant
Europe could easily replace the US as the world's superpower: spend half your national budgets on the military instead of social programs and start acting like a superpower. Americans would be overjoyed: we didn't want to get into the superpower business, it was repeated European screw-ups that forced America's hand.
But what you do instead is lecture the US on what one should and shouldn't do, avoid any kind of responsibility yourself, all the while enjoying the economic and social benefits that you derive from US military power.
Personally, I think the US actually should get out of the superpower business; I think trying to protect Europe from itself is a lost cause and sooner or later we can't afford it anymore and have to stop anyway. But my fellow Americans aren't willing to pay the steep economic price for that. And make no mistake: the consequences for Europe would be disastrous.
making up bad excuses for attacking Iraq (and dragging us into that mess with you)
I happen to think Iraq was a mistake, but so what? Besides, European politicians by and large were just using it to score political points.
Where is the difference between an absolutist protector and a tyrant? And when does such a country go from a protector of liberty to a threat thereof?
I don't know, but attacking nations like Iraq or Afghanistan is certainly not a threat to liberty.
All the free speech in the world does nothing for us if we ultimately have to bow to another country's whims.
Germany wouldn't have to bow to US whims if it did what is necessary to defend itself. But it's so much easier for Germans not to spend the money, pretend they're pacifists, and keep whining about the US.
The expression "put up or shut up" applies here: either Germany needs to become a world military power, or it needs to accept that other nations run the show.
On the other hand, the USA... You show us that you can be trusted. [...] If anyone needs to show the international community they're not going to randomly set the world on fire it's the States.
So, let's say the US just withdraws its troops worldwide and turns inward. Who is going to take care of Germany's defense? Are you going to throw your pacifism out the window, start building nuclear weapons, and start fighting for yourself? Is Germany going to dismantle its social safety net so that it can spend half of its annual budget on defense? Are you personally willing to kill to keep Germany free? That's what it takes.
The US would love for Europe and Japan to take care of their own defense and pull their own weight. But, as you just showed again, Europe and Japan just aren't ready, and the US can't risk Europe falling.
Do you really think forbidding them to wear a certain symbol is going to magically make it impossible
I didn't say "impossible". What I am saying is that it appears to be better for people to be able to openly identify their political views so that others can debate them.
So essentially the position the USA enforced here is wrong because it's not as old as the one they enforced at home. Gotcha. Older is always better.
Right after WWII, Germany was a defeated nation full of ex-Nazis; imposing restrictions on speech was justified and necessary. That has nothing to do with whether such restrictions are a good idea in a mature and functioning democracy.
Furthermore, it's not a question of which is "older". German-style restrictions on speech are old, but they are associated with undemocratic traditions.
That's how the paragraph seems to be usually read, however.
You're just making that up. Paragraph 185 is an unusual restriction on speech even within Europe, distinct from libel laws. It's so unusual that the EU itself has taken a position against these kinds of laws.
You are referring to the ones that show Mohammed as a suicide bomber? However could that disturb public peace? I mean, we're just openly insulting two billion people over the actions of a few thousand (which actually run counter to the beliefs of the people we're insulting). I certainly can't see how that could lead to problems.
Yes, one is openly insulting two billion people. Christians, atheists, and other groups often insult each other in that way without rioting. Insults are a normal and necessary part of political discourse in a democracy. If people riot because they feel insulted, then the problem is with the rioters, not with the people making the insults.
Paragraph 130 (Why does/. strip out the paragraph symbol? It's in 8859-1.) explicitly talks about acts of speech. I don't see why it shouldn't be called a hate speech law. I never said "hate crime law", if that's what you mean.
You argued that laws similar to paragraph 130 exist in the US and in support of that statement pointed to an ADL page on hate crime laws. But paragraph 130 is very different from US hate crime laws. Hate speech is generally legal in the US, even speech advocating illegal violence against minorities.
Essentially you criticize that using different premises we came to a different conclusion than you did.)
I simply question whether you understand the issues at all, and I criticize you for not justifying your conclusions adequately. It may be obvious to you that German-style restrictions on speech work as intended, but it's not obvious to much of the rest of the world.
(By the way, telling a German that we don't understand our own history because we made preventing the same mistakes and not free speech our top priority is pretty offensive and, to paraphrase you, typically American.
It's easy to be democratic when your bellies are full and the alternative is US military intervention.
I'm sorry you're offended, but the burden here is still on Germany to show to the world that it can be trusted.
You keep repeating that it's impossible to identify bad people without absolutely free speech, yet you failt to explain why.
Isn't it obvious? If you make Nazi symbols illegal, many Nazis that would otherwise be wearing them won't be wearing them.
And that is relevant to what I said how?
Because you talk about these issues as if the US and German positions were two equally valid, historically proven, and plausible choices. But if you actually look at the history, you'll find that that's not the case.
185 prohibits insults - however, insults under 185 need to be libellous (the direct translation would be "reputation-violating"
No, that is incorrect; offenses under paragraph 185 need not be libelous.
166 prohibits the "insulting of denominations, religious communities and ideological communities" but only if the insult occurs "in a way fit to disturb public peace".
Yes, like for example cartoons representing the Prophet Mohammed.
Apart from the last bit that's a pretty average hate speech law and it doesn't cover "might offend".
Not even close; you're confusing hate crime laws with hate speech laws.
That's funny, I must've looked somewhere else when they repealed the First Amendment so they could stop people talking about sex.
Typically German: you think that because it's in the law the matter is settled. In reality, the fact that it's in the Constitution is only the beginning: it takes laws, courts, and police to implement that, and how the boundaries are drawn is a constant struggle.
So the Americans are okay with a constitutional amendment denying healthcare benefits to same-sex couples?
I guess a significant fraction of Americans are; why shouldn't they be?
Because Sarah Palin said she supports it and I didn't see anyone physically attacking her over it.
Americans don't as a rule attack their politicians physically. But Palin was widely criticized.
Funny, same thing happens over here (on a smaller scale, though, because people aren't quite as touchy about gaming).
I don't see much of an outrage over free speech restrictions in Germany. In fact, most people don't even seem to understand the issues or history very much. Some people are so uninformed, they don't even know the difference between hate crimes and hate speech...
We went with "make sure everyone can spot them on sight and keep them from gaining new traction".
Actually, a consequence of these laws is that you cannot "spot them" on sight.
And if you don't legalize murder your soldiers can never defend your country.
Don't be so glib. The US legal tradition of free speech goes back many centuries. A lot of smart people have thought about it, and it's based on many legal and historical cases. US-style free speech rules have stood the test of time. German-style restrictions on speech, on the other hand, have a rather checkered history.
Actually, the "different religions" thing is connected to the Nazi thing in that the two overlap significantly. And I still don't see how we would go from hate speech to political debate.
Germany doesn't just prohibit "hate speech", it prohibits speech based on whether it may offend particular groups. German restrictions on speech are unusual (even disregarding the specific restrictions on Nazi-related speech).
It's about as likely as the USA imposing limits on political speech on moral grounds.
So, you're saying its certain then? The reason Americans enjoy free speech rights is not because the Constitution says so, it's because people constantly fight for them.
Plus, it's an election year and politicians always talk nonsense during election years so people remember who they are.
And the fact that these politicians think this helps them politically tells you a lot about German voters, as does the fact that you and others don't seem to think it matters much.
Microsoft's workforce is tiny, Windows licensing is a huge drain on the economy, they keep importing foreign workers, and they are very good at avoiding taxes. So, good riddance, the US economy would likely be better off without Microsoft.
Unfortunately, Ballmer knows full well that the regulatory climate in Europe is much less favorable to Microsoft than the US, so he won't follow through on his threat.
Yeah, but "never allow anything like the Holocaust to happen again" is the central value this country was built upon.
A laudable value, but how should one go about doing that?
We literally don't see how unlimited free speech can be superior to free speech that doesn't allow Nazi propaganda - the latter has a much higher chance of national socialistic ideas taking root and those are the absolute, ultimate evil.
If you don't allow Nazi propaganda, Nazis can't be identified, they can't be publicly debated, and they can't be publicly opposed. In any case, the next serious threat to German democracy isn't going to use swastikas or "Mein Kampf" as its symbols.
But the next threat to German democracy is going to involve restrictions on free speech, blind trust in government decisions, and suppression of public debate, and that makes the ability of the German government to take actions like this so worrisome.
Don't take that as an argument, for censorship, by the way. It's an argument for a very specific, limited kind of censorship that has to be used with care.
But it isn't so specific, is it. Germany also prohibits speech that may be offensive to members of different religions, for example. And, as this story shows, politicians can quickly enact politically expedient new restrictions on speech.
The obvious context was present day, you twit, not something that was over with by the time our president's mother was 3 years old.
I'm talking about present day Germany. Germany isn't behaving well because of any moral superiority, it is behaving well because it still (!) doesn't have much of a choice.
And in the few cases when Germany could have taken a stance (US prisoner transports, Kurnaz, Uighurs, etc.), German politicians have made the politically convenient but morally wrong choices.
And not only are we comparing molehills (Germany banning violent video games) to mountains (torture being official U.S. policy)
I'm not comparing anything at all. What's there even to compare?
Here we're talking about an entirely different issue, namely free speech. I'm saying that Germany has strong and unusual restrictions on free speech and that those are a bad idea.
civil liberties are supposed to be the bedrock for our country, not so with Germany.
Indeed! And I consider that worrisome and something Germans should consider changing. Those restrictions made sense right after WWII, but it's time for Germany to grow up politically now.
We've always had it, with restrictions (many of which were defined by the Allies themselves). Full-blown free speech like in the USA was never intended to exist here.
Yes, the allies didn't want US-style free speech in Germany; it would have been unwise to have that a few years after WWII with many Nazis still part of German government. But that was a couple of generations ago and the old Nazis are dead.
Since the only people we could complain to about it have nuclear weapons and a "nukes mean no responsibility" attitude I think I'm not going to.
There's no need to complain to anybody. WWII has been over for more than 60 years, and Germans are in control of their own destiny again. If Germans want to change their constitution or their laws, they can.
The question is what Germans will do with this freedom: will Germany revert to strong government and restrictive laws, or will Germany finally face the messy and inconvenient business of democracy?
This is, what, Germany's third or fourth attempt at democracy?
At least Germany isn't spying on it's own citizens in blatant violation of its own constitution
How do you know? German laws are weaker in that regard to begin with, and there have been plenty of cases over the last half century.
or in the habit of torturing people, or holding people in jail without trials - even people we know for a fact to be innocent, and insisting that top officials never be held accountable for war crimes.
Are you joking? Germany committed such horrendous crimes against humanity in WWII that for decades, the international community simply wasn't willing to let the German military operate independently. These days, the international community might trust the German military again to some degree, but Germans have learned that it is much cheaper and politically expedient to let other nations do their dirty work.
When Germany actually has a moral choice (Kurnaz, Uighurs, etc.), German democracy fails miserably.
yours is quite a good post but it kind of sets Germans apart from other nationalities and I don't think this is a distinction that can be made.
But there are differences among nations; German history is different from US or French history. And German laws and attitudes towards free speech are different.
People are just people when it comes down to it, just when our leaders do evil things we justify it in the name of national interest.
The question is what people do about it, and the first step towards doing something about bad government is free speech. The US and many other nations explicitly permit anonymous speech and offensive speech, not because people like it, but because prohibiting it carries a big risk. Given Germany's history, maybe it would be good to pay attention and think about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Python still lacks many of Matlab's features, its only advantage is being Free Software.
Python has plenty of advantages over Matlab, and plenty of libraries that Matlab doesn't have. I stopped using Matlab not because it cost money, but because it was a PITA and didn't get the job done.
Ask any numerical analyst to know why it is a terrible idea to solve a linear system with inv(A)*b. But make sure you have at least half an hour free.
Like many specialists, numerical analysts are often too close to the problem. inv(A)*b is fine if it gets the job done.
Unfortunately GNU Fortran doesn't support this yet (unless it has been enabled lately).
GNU Fortran supports OpenMP, MPI, and PVM; those are the current de-facto standards.
G95 implements the new parallel Fortran primitives, but hardly anybody uses them yet, and they are still rather unproven.
Way too many bugs have been created through history that are related to operations that aren't type-safe. Ada is one language that is really strict. Java is acceptable. C# is not acceptable since it has some unsafe parts when it comes to data typing.
C# is, in fact, an excellent language to teach about type safety because it has an explicit "unsafe" construct. Ada has similar back-doors, but actually a lot less error checking; Ada is cumbersome, not safe or well-designed. Java is a toy language.
The idea of programming as a semiskilled task, practiced by people with a few months' training, is dangerous.
Even more dangerous is the idea of programming language design as a semiskilled task, which is, unfortunately, what has happened with C++.
but let's not let most people loose on the infrastructure of our technical civilization or force the professionals to use only tools designed for amateurs.
Professionals don't use C++; professionals use tools that are productive and don't get in the way. Aging grad students who love complexity for complexity's sake use C++.
I wouldn't consider C++ "going beyond" Python; C++ is a bloody mess.
Python is an excellent preparation for most languages other than C/C++, and the fact that people may have a hard time switching to C/C++ is not a strike against Python but a strike against C/C++.
and certainly is useless for stars within a few hundred light years, where all the other exoplanets have been found.
Huh? You think we have found all the (other?) exoplanets within a few hundred lightyears? What do you base this assumption on?
That is disturbing. Is this a plot to keep Palin under control, or is it Palin's (not so) secret master plan to take over the world? Muwahaha.
The data loss and corruption that the parent is talking about is the fault of crap hardware. In almost every case, USB is involved, or more rarely the lack of ECC ram. It is true that ZFS is less tolerant of bad hardware.
What good is a fault tolerant file system if it isn't tolerant of faults?
With such hardware, it is impossible for any filesystem to function reliably.
Quite incorrect.
USB and Firewire bridges are notorious for this. If you care about your data, you should run the other way if you happen upon one.
Well, golly, those only happen to be the way 99.999% of Apple's customers attach exernal drives, not to mention 99.9% of all of the rest of the world.
Which is a shame, since if it did, ZFS would be last file system mankind would have ever needed.
Well, there is always software that promises a lot and crumbles under its own weight, and then there is software that promises little and delivers a bit more. Windows and Solaris fall into the first category, UNIX and Linux into the second. Worse really is better.
My personal favorite is: "Our planet is decaying in its own filth, and is best avoided by all aliens"
Other choices are: "We are a benign species, opposed to interplanetary conflict, and believe in equal opportunity for all beings, regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation or planet of origin", "Congratulations on your birthday", and "We look forward to sharing the many benefits of our combined knowledge".
AT&T runs a standard GSM/3G network and allows unlocked phones. There are plenty of phones that support tethering, including all Symbian phones. If you buy an iPhone with restrictions, that's really your problem.
The mandate is that the software is provided free with the system, not that users actually use it. It doesn't even have to be pre-installed, it's OK to have it provided on a CD.
But who do the States protect us from?
The US isn't trying to protect Germany at all, it's trying to protect itself: its markets, its access to resources, and its citizens. Democracy in Europe is, and has ever been, only a means to that end.
Iraq is a prime example of the States invading a country just to get at its natural resources.
And if so, so what? Iraq was a corrupt, murderous, and genocidal dictatorship. What is wrong with attempting to democratize it and install a free market economy that is actually willing to trade with the US and Europe? Everybody wins that way. Hey, the US did the same thing in Germany and it worked out well for Germans, didn't it? The other victors would have been happy to dismantle Germany completely or treat it like the Soviets did with East Germany.
Besides, the US isn't just getting natural resources for itself, it's also getting them for Europe. What do you think European economy and politics would look like if the US didn't do these things? Europe can't even ensure a reliable flow of heating gas from Russia.
China? In fifteen years the Chinese will simply buy their way past anything the States do.
I don't want to live in a world dominated by China, Russia, and Islamic nations. I suspect neither do you. Maybe we can't do anything about it in the long term, but I'm glad at least someone is trying in the short term.
I do expect us to do warfare on them - economic warfare.
The US and European economies are too tightly linked; you'd just end up destroying both. That is why European and American politicians keep talking.
Right now the USA are an aging superpower on its way out, desperately trying to somehow keep themselves relevant
Europe could easily replace the US as the world's superpower: spend half your national budgets on the military instead of social programs and start acting like a superpower. Americans would be overjoyed: we didn't want to get into the superpower business, it was repeated European screw-ups that forced America's hand.
But what you do instead is lecture the US on what one should and shouldn't do, avoid any kind of responsibility yourself, all the while enjoying the economic and social benefits that you derive from US military power.
Personally, I think the US actually should get out of the superpower business; I think trying to protect Europe from itself is a lost cause and sooner or later we can't afford it anymore and have to stop anyway. But my fellow Americans aren't willing to pay the steep economic price for that. And make no mistake: the consequences for Europe would be disastrous.
making up bad excuses for attacking Iraq (and dragging us into that mess with you)
I happen to think Iraq was a mistake, but so what? Besides, European politicians by and large were just using it to score political points.
Where is the difference between an absolutist protector and a tyrant? And when does such a country go from a protector of liberty to a threat thereof?
I don't know, but attacking nations like Iraq or Afghanistan is certainly not a threat to liberty.
All the free speech in the world does nothing for us if we ultimately have to bow to another country's whims.
Germany wouldn't have to bow to US whims if it did what is necessary to defend itself. But it's so much easier for Germans not to spend the money, pretend they're pacifists, and keep whining about the US.
The expression "put up or shut up" applies here: either Germany needs to become a world military power, or it needs to accept that other nations run the show.
On the other hand, the USA... You show us that you can be trusted. [...] If anyone needs to show the international community they're not going to randomly set the world on fire it's the States.
So, let's say the US just withdraws its troops worldwide and turns inward. Who is going to take care of Germany's defense? Are you going to throw your pacifism out the window, start building nuclear weapons, and start fighting for yourself? Is Germany going to dismantle its social safety net so that it can spend half of its annual budget on defense? Are you personally willing to kill to keep Germany free? That's what it takes.
The US would love for Europe and Japan to take care of their own defense and pull their own weight. But, as you just showed again, Europe and Japan just aren't ready, and the US can't risk Europe falling.
Do you really think forbidding them to wear a certain symbol is going to magically make it impossible
I didn't say "impossible". What I am saying is that it appears to be better for people to be able to openly identify their political views so that others can debate them.
So essentially the position the USA enforced here is wrong because it's not as old as the one they enforced at home. Gotcha. Older is always better.
Right after WWII, Germany was a defeated nation full of ex-Nazis; imposing restrictions on speech was justified and necessary. That has nothing to do with whether such restrictions are a good idea in a mature and functioning democracy.
Furthermore, it's not a question of which is "older". German-style restrictions on speech are old, but they are associated with undemocratic traditions.
That's how the paragraph seems to be usually read, however.
You're just making that up. Paragraph 185 is an unusual restriction on speech even within Europe, distinct from libel laws. It's so unusual that the EU itself has taken a position against these kinds of laws.
You are referring to the ones that show Mohammed as a suicide bomber? However could that disturb public peace? I mean, we're just openly insulting two billion people over the actions of a few thousand (which actually run counter to the beliefs of the people we're insulting). I certainly can't see how that could lead to problems.
Yes, one is openly insulting two billion people. Christians, atheists, and other groups often insult each other in that way without rioting. Insults are a normal and necessary part of political discourse in a democracy. If people riot because they feel insulted, then the problem is with the rioters, not with the people making the insults.
Paragraph 130 (Why does /. strip out the paragraph symbol? It's in 8859-1.) explicitly talks about acts of speech. I don't see why it shouldn't be called a hate speech law. I never said "hate crime law", if that's what you mean.
You argued that laws similar to paragraph 130 exist in the US and in support of that statement pointed to an ADL page on hate crime laws. But paragraph 130 is very different from US hate crime laws. Hate speech is generally legal in the US, even speech advocating illegal violence against minorities.
Essentially you criticize that using different premises we came to a different conclusion than you did.)
I simply question whether you understand the issues at all, and I criticize you for not justifying your conclusions adequately. It may be obvious to you that German-style restrictions on speech work as intended, but it's not obvious to much of the rest of the world.
(By the way, telling a German that we don't understand our own history because we made preventing the same mistakes and not free speech our top priority is pretty offensive and, to paraphrase you, typically American.
It's easy to be democratic when your bellies are full and the alternative is US military intervention.
I'm sorry you're offended, but the burden here is still on Germany to show to the world that it can be trusted.
You keep repeating that it's impossible to identify bad people without absolutely free speech, yet you failt to explain why.
Isn't it obvious? If you make Nazi symbols illegal, many Nazis that would otherwise be wearing them won't be wearing them.
And that is relevant to what I said how?
Because you talk about these issues as if the US and German positions were two equally valid, historically proven, and plausible choices. But if you actually look at the history, you'll find that that's not the case.
185 prohibits insults - however, insults under 185 need to be libellous (the direct translation would be "reputation-violating"
No, that is incorrect; offenses under paragraph 185 need not be libelous.
166 prohibits the "insulting of denominations, religious communities and ideological communities" but only if the insult occurs "in a way fit to disturb public peace".
Yes, like for example cartoons representing the Prophet Mohammed.
Apart from the last bit that's a pretty average hate speech law and it doesn't cover "might offend".
Not even close; you're confusing hate crime laws with hate speech laws.
That's funny, I must've looked somewhere else when they repealed the First Amendment so they could stop people talking about sex.
Typically German: you think that because it's in the law the matter is settled. In reality, the fact that it's in the Constitution is only the beginning: it takes laws, courts, and police to implement that, and how the boundaries are drawn is a constant struggle.
So the Americans are okay with a constitutional amendment denying healthcare benefits to same-sex couples?
I guess a significant fraction of Americans are; why shouldn't they be?
Because Sarah Palin said she supports it and I didn't see anyone physically attacking her over it.
Americans don't as a rule attack their politicians physically. But Palin was widely criticized.
Funny, same thing happens over here (on a smaller scale, though, because people aren't quite as touchy about gaming).
I don't see much of an outrage over free speech restrictions in Germany. In fact, most people don't even seem to understand the issues or history very much. Some people are so uninformed, they don't even know the difference between hate crimes and hate speech...
We went with "make sure everyone can spot them on sight and keep them from gaining new traction".
Actually, a consequence of these laws is that you cannot "spot them" on sight.
And if you don't legalize murder your soldiers can never defend your country.
Don't be so glib. The US legal tradition of free speech goes back many centuries. A lot of smart people have thought about it, and it's based on many legal and historical cases. US-style free speech rules have stood the test of time. German-style restrictions on speech, on the other hand, have a rather checkered history.
Actually, the "different religions" thing is connected to the Nazi thing in that the two overlap significantly. And I still don't see how we would go from hate speech to political debate.
Germany doesn't just prohibit "hate speech", it prohibits speech based on whether it may offend particular groups. German restrictions on speech are unusual (even disregarding the specific restrictions on Nazi-related speech).
It's about as likely as the USA imposing limits on political speech on moral grounds.
So, you're saying its certain then? The reason Americans enjoy free speech rights is not because the Constitution says so, it's because people constantly fight for them.
Plus, it's an election year and politicians always talk nonsense during election years so people remember who they are.
And the fact that these politicians think this helps them politically tells you a lot about German voters, as does the fact that you and others don't seem to think it matters much.
Microsoft's workforce is tiny, Windows licensing is a huge drain on the economy, they keep importing foreign workers, and they are very good at avoiding taxes. So, good riddance, the US economy would likely be better off without Microsoft.
Unfortunately, Ballmer knows full well that the regulatory climate in Europe is much less favorable to Microsoft than the US, so he won't follow through on his threat.
Yeah, but "never allow anything like the Holocaust to happen again" is the central value this country was built upon.
A laudable value, but how should one go about doing that?
We literally don't see how unlimited free speech can be superior to free speech that doesn't allow Nazi propaganda - the latter has a much higher chance of national socialistic ideas taking root and those are the absolute, ultimate evil.
If you don't allow Nazi propaganda, Nazis can't be identified, they can't be publicly debated, and they can't be publicly opposed. In any case, the next serious threat to German democracy isn't going to use swastikas or "Mein Kampf" as its symbols.
But the next threat to German democracy is going to involve restrictions on free speech, blind trust in government decisions, and suppression of public debate, and that makes the ability of the German government to take actions like this so worrisome.
Don't take that as an argument, for censorship, by the way. It's an argument for a very specific, limited kind of censorship that has to be used with care.
But it isn't so specific, is it. Germany also prohibits speech that may be offensive to members of different religions, for example. And, as this story shows, politicians can quickly enact politically expedient new restrictions on speech.
The obvious context was present day, you twit, not something that was over with by the time our president's mother was 3 years old.
I'm talking about present day Germany. Germany isn't behaving well because of any moral superiority, it is behaving well because it still (!) doesn't have much of a choice.
And in the few cases when Germany could have taken a stance (US prisoner transports, Kurnaz, Uighurs, etc.), German politicians have made the politically convenient but morally wrong choices.
And not only are we comparing molehills (Germany banning violent video games) to mountains (torture being official U.S. policy)
I'm not comparing anything at all. What's there even to compare?
Here we're talking about an entirely different issue, namely free speech. I'm saying that Germany has strong and unusual restrictions on free speech and that those are a bad idea.
civil liberties are supposed to be the bedrock for our country, not so with Germany.
Indeed! And I consider that worrisome and something Germans should consider changing. Those restrictions made sense right after WWII, but it's time for Germany to grow up politically now.
Make that "with many Nazis still part of German society".
We've always had it, with restrictions (many of which were defined by the Allies themselves). Full-blown free speech like in the USA was never intended to exist here.
Yes, the allies didn't want US-style free speech in Germany; it would have been unwise to have that a few years after WWII with many Nazis still part of German government. But that was a couple of generations ago and the old Nazis are dead.
Since the only people we could complain to about it have nuclear weapons and a "nukes mean no responsibility" attitude I think I'm not going to.
There's no need to complain to anybody. WWII has been over for more than 60 years, and Germans are in control of their own destiny again. If Germans want to change their constitution or their laws, they can.
The question is what Germans will do with this freedom: will Germany revert to strong government and restrictive laws, or will Germany finally face the messy and inconvenient business of democracy?
This is, what, Germany's third or fourth attempt at democracy?
No problem:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beleidigung
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beschimpfung_von_Bekenntnissen,_Religionsgesellschaften_und_Weltanschauungsvereinigungen
Lots of links there, as well as a discussion of how Germany compares to other nations in those regards.
At least Germany isn't spying on it's own citizens in blatant violation of its own constitution
How do you know? German laws are weaker in that regard to begin with, and there have been plenty of cases over the last half century.
or in the habit of torturing people, or holding people in jail without trials - even people we know for a fact to be innocent, and insisting that top officials never be held accountable for war crimes.
Are you joking? Germany committed such horrendous crimes against humanity in WWII that for decades, the international community simply wasn't willing to let the German military operate independently. These days, the international community might trust the German military again to some degree, but Germans have learned that it is much cheaper and politically expedient to let other nations do their dirty work.
When Germany actually has a moral choice (Kurnaz, Uighurs, etc.), German democracy fails miserably.
yours is quite a good post but it kind of sets Germans apart from other nationalities and I don't think this is a distinction that can be made.
But there are differences among nations; German history is different from US or French history. And German laws and attitudes towards free speech are different.
People are just people when it comes down to it, just when our leaders do evil things we justify it in the name of national interest.
The question is what people do about it, and the first step towards doing something about bad government is free speech. The US and many other nations explicitly permit anonymous speech and offensive speech, not because people like it, but because prohibiting it carries a big risk. Given Germany's history, maybe it would be good to pay attention and think about it.